TRUTH AND LOGIC

WHO SUPPORTS PEACE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST?

By Louis Rene Beres

"All supporters of the Oslo
Accords want peace."
"Mr. Smith is not a supporter of the Oslo Accords."
"Mr. Smith does not want peace."

Every first-year undergraduate student of logic should be
familiar with the fallacy illustrated above. Known formally as
Denying the Antecedent, it can emerge inadvertently because of
incorrect reasoning or as the purposeful result of a calculated
deception. In the above example, "Smith's" reputation
falls victim to denying the antecedent.

In the ongoing controversy surrounding Oslo, supporters of the
Israel-Palestinian agreements would have everyone believe that
the opponents of these agreements do not want peace. For the most
part, the charges of the "peace camp" routinely exhibit
this fallacy. In reality, there is no automatic connection of any
kind between one's acceptance or rejection of Oslo and one's
commitment to peace in the Middle East. Moreover, there is every
reason to believe that Oslo opponents are every bit as opposed to
war and terrorism as are Oslo supporters.

This is not the only fallacy committed by supporters of the
"peace process." Another frequent experience of Oslo
opponents is to find themselves defending an argument that they
have never actually offered. For example, in a debate concerning
Oslo, an opponent of the agreement is commenting upon the
persistent lack of Palestinian (PA) compliance. In response, the
debater supporting Oslo launches into an attack on the Israeli
Government's spiritual, moral and/or economic corruption. Here,
by ignorance or by design, the Oslo supporter misses the point,
because the Oslo opponent has never presented any defense of the
Israeli Government's integrity. This fallacy is known formally as
Ignoratio Elenchi.

Another pertinent fallacy is known as Asserting the
Consequent. Here, Oslo supporters often advance the following
argument: (1) All terrorist violence against Israelis by
Palestinians is preceded by the lack of a full Israeli commitment
to Oslo expectations; (2) There has been a lack of full Israeli
commitment to Oslo expectations; (3) Therefore, we will have
Palestinian terrorism against Israelis. By asserting the
consequent, the misleading conclusion.

Two additional fallacies by Oslo supporters warrant mention.
The first, known as the fallacy of the Loaded Question, is a
political version of "When did you stop beating your
wife?" Only now, in the context of national and world
politics, it has become: "When did you stop hating and
torturing innocent Palestinians?" The outcome of this
contrived query is to place the Oslo opponent in the unfair
position of denying something he likely never accepted or
undertook, occasioning a diversion of the argument away from its
actual internal merit.

The second of the two last fallacies involves discrediting
Oslo opponents by questioning their motives. This particular form
of reasoning, which is always invalid, is known formally as the
Genetic Fallacy. An example would be as follows: "Smith
opposes Oslo because he is unable to extract any personal
benefits from this agreement. Therefore, Oslo warrants
support." Or: "Smith opposes Oslo because he dislikes
Oslo supporters. Therefore, Oslo warrants support." The
allegations of motive ascribed to Smith, the Oslo opponent, may
in fact be entirely correct, but these allegations are entirely
irrelevant to the diplomatic promise of Oslo.

For the present, the arguments used by Oslo supporters to
discredit Oslo opponents often remain mired in logical fallacies.
To guard against these arguments, it is essential that Oslo
opponents now recall the rules of correct reasoning and invoke
these rules whenever they are violated. Although supporters of
this "peace process" have every right to argue on
behalf of their particular plan for the Middle East, they also
have a corollary obligation to do so truthfully.

=============

LOUIS RENE BERES was educated at Princeton
(Ph.D., 1971). He is Professor of International Law, Department
of Political Science, Purdue University and is author of many
books and articles dealing with Israeli security matters.